This is more focused on the Egyptians around Luxor, where Upper Egypt was located.

A recent DNA study by Cruciani that focused on the Y chromosome E-M78 revealed that it was ’born’ in North East Africa , not East Africa as previously thought. This means, that an Egyptianwith an M78Y chromosome has had a male line ancestry reaching back to the Pleistocene inhabitants of Egypt; as far back as the Halfan culture about 24,000 years ago.

The M2 lineage is mainly found primarily in ‘‘Eastern,’’ ‘‘sub-Saharan,’’ and sub-equatorial African groups, those with the highest frequency of the ‘‘Broad’’ trend physiognomy, but found also in notable frequencies in Nubia and Upper Egypt, as indicated by the

The Halfan people, of Egypt and Nubia flourished between 18,000 and 15,000 BC in Nubia and Egypt.

One Halfan site is dated, before 24,000 BC.

M2- (20,000-30,000 B.P.)

M35- (22,400 B.P.)

M78– (18,600 B.P.)

This would also give the plausible assignment of the Nubian-M2 and the Ethiopian PN2 (35,000 B.P.) as the

“Progenitors” of “Nubian-Egyptian/Halfan Culture”..

They lived on a diet of large herd animals and theKhormusan tradition of fishing.

Although there are only a few Halfan sites and they are small in size, there is a greater concentration of artifacts, indicating that this was not a people bound to seasonal wandering, but one that had settled, at least for a time.

The Halfan is seen as the parent culture of the Ibero-Maurusian industry which spread across the Sahara and into Spain.

Sometimes seen as a Proto-Afro-Asiatic culture, this group is derived from “The Nile River Valley culture known as Halfan”, dating to about 17,000 BC.

The Halfan culture was derived in turn from the Khormusan, which depended on specializedhunting, fishing, and collecting techniques for survival…

The material remains of this culture are primarily stone tools, flakes, and a multitude of rock paintings.

The end of the Khormusan came around 16000 B.C. and was concurrent with the development of other cultures in the region, including the Gemaian.

According to a genetic study in December 2012, Ramesses III, second Pharaoh of the Twentieth Dynasty and considered to be the Last GreatNew Kingdom king to wield any substantial authority over Egypt, belonged to Y-DNA Haplogroup E1b1a/M2/E-V38, mainly found in North Africa, East Africa and Sub-saharan Africa.

Ramsses III from tomb KV11,

A genetic kinship analysis was done to investigate a possible family relationship between Ramesses III and Unknown man E, Who may actually be his son Pentawer. An ancient Egyptian Prince of the 20th dynasty, and son of Pharaoh Ramesses III and a secondary wife, Tiye. They amplified 16 Y-chromosomal, short tandem repeats (AmpF\STR yfiler PCR amplification kit; Applied Biosystems). Eight polymorphic microsatellites of the nuclear genome were also amplified (Identifiler and AmpF\STR Minifiler kits; Applied Biosystems). The Y-chromosomal Haplogroups of Ramesses III and unknown man E was screened using the Whit Athey’s Haplogroup Predictor we determined the Y-chromosomal Haplogroup E1b1a. The testing of polymorphic autosomal micro satellite loci provided similar results in at least one allele of each marker (table 2⇓). Although the mummy of Ramesses III’s wife Tiy was not available for testing, the identical Ychromosomal DNA and Autosomal half allele sharing of the two male mummies strongly suggest a Father-Son relationship.

E1b1a (V100) This population is one of two important populations to spring out of the Ethiopian Plateau, E1b1a effect became the most dominant population in Subsaharan Africa

E1b1a (M2) This population grew in enough numbers in the Ethiopian lowlands to be able to cross into the territories of Paleo Africans on their West in Sudan E1b1a (L576) This population represents an East to West thrust in Africa, only E1b1a lineage able to survive crossing the A1b1 territories E1b1a (L86.1) This mutation indicates that the population crossed the A1b1 dominated Grassland into the regions West of the great Lakes E1b1a (M58) Expansion between the Great Lakes & Midwest Africa E1b1a (M116.2) Very small minority in Mali E1b1a (M149) Very small minority in South Africa E1b1a (M155) Very small minority in Mali E1b1a (M10) Dispersed between Cameroon & Tanzania E1b1a (L485) An important lineage that emerged in the Eastern Benue valley in Central Nigeria E1b1a (L514) Marker for a strong lineage that played a major role in turning West Africa into their new territor E1b1a (M191) This marker indicates that the main body of (L485) reached the Benue River in Nigeria and Cameroon E1b1a (P252) A population that followed the Benue river South, an important marker of the Bantu expansion in Nigeria E1b1a (P9.2) The population that remained in the Benue region, expanded into West into Nigeria & South to Gabon E1b1a (P115) Eastern limit expansion population, reaching Southwestern Central Africa, with possible presence in other Fang regions E1b1a (P116) South of the Benue expansion in Southern Cameroon & Gabon E1b1a (U175) An important lineage that emerged in the Western region of Benue in Nigeria and Niger E1b1a (U209) This population represents the backbone of the Bantu expansion, emerged and expanded out of the Bantu Urheimat E1b1a (U290) A primary marker of African slavery in the USA, Important lineage in Southern Cameroon E1b1a (M154) Found in Western Cameroon & South Africa E1b1a (P268) Found in Gambia, could possibly indicate an early expansion out of Central Africa or late emergence out of an L86.1* that lived amongst (L485) or (U175)E1b1a (M329) The E1b1a population that remained in the Ethiopian lowlands.

While as a General Assembly Declaration it is not a legally binding instrument under international law,

according to a UN press release, it does “represent the dynamic development of international legal norms and it reflects the commitment of the UN’s member states to move in certain directions”; the UN describes it as setting “an important standard for the treatment of indigenous peoples that will undoubtedly be a significant tool towards eliminatinghuman rights violationsagainst the planet’s 370 million indigenous people, and assisting them in combating discrimination and marginalisation.

The Declaration sets out the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples, as well as their rights to culture, identity, language, employment, health, education and other issues.

It also “emphasizes the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures and traditions, and to pursue their development in keeping with their own needs and aspirations”.

It “prohibits discrimination against indigenous peoples”, and it “promotes their full and effective participation in all matters that concern them and their right to remain distinct and to pursue their own visions of economic and social development”

The Draft Declaration was then referred to the Commission on Human Rights, which established another Working Group to examine its terms. Over the following years this Working Group met on 11 occasions to examine and fine-tune the Draft Declaration and its provisions.

Progress was slow because of certain states’ concerns regarding some key provisions of the Declaration, such as

indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination and the control over natural resources existing on indigenous peoples’ traditional lands.

The final version of the Declaration was adopted on 29 June 2006 by the 47-member Human Rights Council(the successor body to the Commission on Human Rights), with 30 member states in favour, two against, 12 abstentions, and three absentees.

The Declaration was then referred to the General Assembly,

which voted on the adoption of the proposal on 13 September 2007 during its 61st regular session.

The U.S. mission also issued a floor document, “Observations of the United States with respect to

the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, setting out its objections to the Declaration. Most of these are based on the same points as the other three countries’ rejections but, in addition,

theUnited States drew attention to the Declaration’s failure to provide a clear definition of exactly whom

I will not discuss this further.
If you wish to debate this, there are far more and better people than I who are both motivated, interested and willing to spend their time, debating with you on this issue.

Although I dislike the site myself.
There is a site called;

Stormfront, full of people you surely can enlighten.

If you wish to continue, this is not the place.

We try to post an article a day and simple dont have the time, debating back and forth while having a life outside of CFL, as well as trying to enlighten people on philosophy, history, science etc.

If this is your area of expertice there’s forums with much bigger “audience” like Stormfront, as mentioned.

I will not participate any further and any comment made by you after this one is unecessary and useless.

Northern Egyptians are a bit more cosmopolitan in their ancestry 64.8% indigenous African. About 20% of the Y chrom0somes are Near Eastern in Origin, and 10.5 % are Haplogroup R , Y- chromosomes. However, some of these Near Eastern and European Y chromosomes show an ancient entry to Africa (G, K2, R1a, R1b are 8,000 B.P. and older) and any historical contribution from foreign men is more likely to be in the 15% area. Divided by two (no recent female contribution to speak of). This makes non-dynastic Egyptian population around the 7% mark in Lower Egypt; and only some of this is Arab.

As for the maternal (mother’s) inheritance; this is more varied. From a study at Gurna (of modern upper Egyptians): Haplogroups;